Radioactive dating

[dad]

He confesses his belief. Observing a supernova wax and wane, we still can't tell if it experiences time, he says. We all know what this means about his reasoning abilities.

Movement does not mean time as we know it. Angels move.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why? What else would it be..made up?

Answer the question.

dad (post 980): As for tektites if some of them were caused by violently erupting fountains of the deep, then of course they are expected!! Naturally, they would have some isotopic signature at the time, . . .

Me: Would an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 qualify as "some isotopic signature"?

 

[dad]

Answer the question.

dad (post 980): As for tektites if some of them were caused by violently erupting fountains of the deep, then of course they are expected!! Naturally, they would have some isotopic signature at the time, . . .

Me: Would an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 qualify as "some isotopic signature"?

Well, at the time referred to...I think it was the flood time...yes ratios likely existed. So, get a sample from around the kt layer, which is my flood layer suspect area, and let us know if it is as I said, a different signature than something laid down in the last few hundred years. Are you so bankrupt of material that you resort to some meaningless repetetive loop de loop?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, at the time referred to...I think it was the flood time...yes ratios likely existed.

Could an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 be consistent with the ratios that existed at that time? What relationships between these isotopes should we see during this time, and why?

So, get a sample from around the kt layer, which is my flood layer suspect area, and let us know if it is as I said, a different signature than something laid down in the last few hundred years.

Are you saying that the past state would produce a different signature than the present state?

 

[dad]

Could an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 be consistent with the ratios that existed at that time? What relationships between these isotopes should we see during this time, and why?



Are you saying that the past state would produce a different signature than the present state?[/ one presumes whatever processes then wereat work, also changed.QUOTE]no..i am saying it changes even today. There is more and more daughter isotopes..etc. in the former state also

Could an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 be consistent with the ratios that existed at that time? What relationships between these isotopes should we see during this time, and why?



Are you saying that the past state would produce a different signature than the present state?

things are always changing. More and more daughter material over tome for example. Likewise, presumably in the former nature, things constantly changed also. Therefore, since it was constant change in both states, when we look back at any given layer, we see a different ratio or signature.

 

[dad]

Oklo Natural Fission Reactor:

Scientific American article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/


Video, if you can't be bothered reading:
Also, provides evidence that the fine structure constant has not appreciably changed for the last ~2 billion years.

false. The long history you invented and need for oklo to be what you claim is unsupported and unsupportable.

 

[dad]

noah was in the ark, and lots of cosmic stuff sceincetish will never explain has happened on this earth and with eyewitnessed and recorded history . because scientish they don't want to know how the sun and cosmic events might change the environment. they can't or won't find those laws because they don't want to.
they have to have a constant lie to have a long age of the earth.
the problem is they don't ask the questions to learn the laws of a Living universe.
with bigger laws than their little minds can wrap around.
I mean these are the people who believe mammoths lived near the ice.. rotf!

rather than just some cosmic event changing all things, a different nature in the past is by far the best and most biblical explanation.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

false. The long history you invented and need for oklo to be what you claim is unsupported and unsupportable.

Alas for you it is supported and supportable.

 

[dad]

Alas for you it is supported and supportable.

Great so support the magic elevator ride, where the whole site got dunked miles under?

 

[Loudmouth]

things are always changing. More and more daughter material over tome for example. Likewise, presumably in the former nature, things constantly changed also. Therefore, since it was constant change in both states, when we look back at any given layer, we see a different ratio or signature.

Could an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 be consistent with "a different ratio or signature"?

 

[dad]

Could an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 be consistent with "a different ratio or signature"?

There are different ratio signatures as we look back in time for different materials. Naturally the atoms change. In this state we see decay for example, and that always leaves the ratios changed.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are different ratio signatures as we look back in time for different materials. Naturally the atoms change. In this state we see decay for example, and that always leaves the ratios changed.

Could an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 be consistent with "a different ratio or signature"? Yes or no?

 

[dad]

We didn't see a same state past yesterday?

I did, how about you?

 

[dad]

Could an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 be consistent with "a different ratio or signature"? Yes or no?

Reality. It can be your friend. In reality, ratios are constantly changing. For example, more and more daughter isotopes are produced. Even a child should be able to grasp the fact that in the far past, the ratios we now see, should have been different. Elementary. The only question is why. You wish us to belive for zero reason that only the present state is responsible for that. That is pretty ignorant though, since science does not know if the state in the far past was the same or not, and whether creation started the ball rolling.

 

[Loudmouth]

Reality. It can be your friend. In reality, ratios are constantly changing. For example, more and more daughter isotopes are produced. Even a child should be able to grasp the fact that in the far past, the ratios we now see, should have been different.

Could an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 be consistent with "a different ratio or signature"? Yes or no?

You wish us to belive for zero reason that only the present state is responsible for that.

I have given you a reason, which you continue to ignore.

 

[dad]

Could an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 be consistent with "a different ratio or signature"? Yes or no?



I have given you a reason, which you continue to ignore.

Your reason is unsound foggy nonsense. Nowthen, all ratios we actually see are consistent with the actual bible state past. No use trying to sound intelligent bandying Ar or PB RATIOS AROUND LIKE A BANGIE.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nowthen, all ratios we actually see are consistent with the actual bible state past.

What ratios would not be consistent with a bible state past?

 

[dad]

What ratios would not be consistent with a bible state past?

I haven't seen any yet. Relax. The truth cannot be assailed by phantom doubts.

 

[Loudmouth]

I haven't seen any yet.

Are these inconsistent, if found in the same geologic stratum?

Ar/K = 0.5

Pb/U = 0.1

The truth cannot be assailed by phantom doubts.

You are afraid of the truth, which is why you can't answer my questions.

 

[dad]

Are these inconsistent, if found in the same geologic stratum?

Ar/K = 0.5

Pb/U = 0.1

First of all did you invent those numbers or can we see them in an actual sample? If they are real, of course they are consistent. If invented..well...you know...